But this anti socialism you are speaking of does not apply to all games. Most games you can play with friends and so it is a social environment. But sometimes you have to put up with rude people who just say swears cause they can.

As for the anger many people see gaming as a place to let out your anger and blast the head of that certain someone you really hate. It can make you angry if you lose all the time but you can get angry for everything aswell. E.g If your car wont start or someone is mean to you etc.

The health issue can be fixed if you got resposible parents who make shure that you run 500 meters before you get to play or that you have a sport wich you enjoy doing.

my opponent makes a point. but who is really going to run 500 meters before they a round of black ops? also,Video games can become an addiction and lead to future health problems. my opponent also states that systems like the wii and the kinect are healthy. not all games for the wii are healthy and fun. they are also not the best way to work out. your just burning calories. your not getting stronger or faster.

You couldve just used the argument, that too much is always bad for you in every case. Drinking water is healthy, but drinking too much and you overhydrate and go splat on the ground. Same happens with Computer Games.

Reasons for voting decision: Like Blackvoid said, PRO atleast capitalized sentences, and in addition to that, even though both debaters didn't really convince me, I'd give sources to CON for atleast providing a reference for his poorly argued argument.

Reasons for voting decision: Both sides broke the rules for saying something other than "good job to eachother" in round 4. There was a total lack of nuanced analysis, which would have been remedied with a few narratives. Pro conceded games have issues when he said everyone should run 500m before playing. Con also demonstrated most games were unproductive, even those with "movement". Con just asserted, but pro failed to meet their burden of proof.
Neg gets arguments but the debate was drawn due to very poor neg style.